Can she move away before baby is born

[CourtClerk]

Purely for my own curiosity, any idea how often this actually happens?

I have no actual numbers, but it is very common.

 

[nextwife]

slight correction, NW. here in CA, he needs to be married before the chilld is BORN, not before the creation to attain equal rights at the birth, OR sign the paternity forms at the birth.

Thank you. But for SURE if he was married first, he'd have instant rights. Let's face it, if she already wishes to bolt while pregnant, she sure is unlikely to marry him now.

 

[LdiJ]

I would add a word of caution on some of the advice that is being given. NY would have to AGREE to allow CA to maintain jurisdiction, since the child will be an automatic resident of NY when born in NY.

There is no guarantee that NY will release jurisdiction to CA.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would add a word of caution on some of the advice that is being given. NY would have to AGREE to allow CA to maintain jurisdiction, since the child will be an automatic resident of NY when born in NY.

There is no guarantee that NY will release jurisdiction to CA.

Actually you are not really correct on that because there would already be a court case open concerning the child.

 

[LdiJ]

Actually you are not really correct on that because there would already be a court case open concerning the child.

I disagree. Just because CA allows a case to be filed before there is a live birth, doesn't mean that NY law would agree with the same and would relinquish jurisdiction over the child. NY MAY relinquish jurisdiction, NY may not.

One reason why I can think of that NY might not relinquish jurisdiction is if CA made an attempt to order the NY resident returned to CA.

 

[mistoffolees]

I disagree. Just because CA allows a case to be filed before there is a live birth, doesn't mean that NY law would agree with the same and would relinquish jurisdiction over the child. NY MAY relinquish jurisdiction, NY may not.

One reason why I can think of that NY might not relinquish jurisdiction is if CA made an attempt to order the NY resident returned to CA.

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that a pending case in CA would take precedence.

As I understand what CC said, filing before birth would make the case pending until the child is born. The instant the child is born, there would be an active case.

In NY, Dad would have to wait until after the child is born and then rush into court - so the CA case would always be first. I don't believe NY could overrule UCCJEA.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that a pending case in CA would take precedence.

As I understand what CC said, filing before birth would make the case pending until the child is born. The instant the child is born, there would be an active case.

In NY, Dad would have to wait until after the child is born and then rush into court - so the CA case would always be first. I don't believe NY could overrule UCCJEA.

Under the UCCJEA the state with jurisdiction is the state of the child's legal residence. The child would be a legal resident of NY because that is where the child will be born.

CA has taken the position that CA has jurisdiction over a child conceived in its state, unless the mother is a legal resident of another jurisdiction when the child is born. Since its often less than six months until a child is born in the new state, that allows CA to assume jurisdiction. CA also allows a case to be filed before there is a live birth.

However, a state is not required to follow the UCCJEA if its laws are contradictory to the laws of the other state. So far CA is the only state I know of that takes that position AND attempts to order a child back to CA. There was another case on these forums years ago where a Montana judge ceded jurisdiction to WA state, but in that case the mother left for Montana only a couple of weeks before birth and the WA judge was not attempting to order the child returned to WA.

I know that some judges/states have ceded jurisdiction ceded to CA in those circumstances, and some have not. Therefore its misleading to the OP to give him the impression that he can successfully retain jurisdiction in CA and particularly to have the child returned to CA.

Its not misleading to tell him he can try. Its misleading to allow him to assume that its a given that he will prevail.

 

[CJane]

This has come up here before, in a case that was updated frequently here.

IIRC, the state where the child was born (Montana or Wyoming?) refused to cede jurisdiction to CA, CA issued a return order for the child, the other state refused to acknowledge it as valid and issued visitation/custody orders, CA continued attempting to order the child back...

After a VERY protracted and drawn out battle, Dad withdrew his petition in CA and moved to be near the child.

I think it's a battle that the putative father COULD win, if he has vast resources. Or, as I suspect is often the case, Mom doesn't fight CA having jurisdiction.

But it's a long way from a slam dnk.

 

[Proserpina]

I'm getting the distinct impression that these cases are only commonly won if a) there is a lot of money being spent by the putative father or b) the mother doesn't know how to fight it, or doesn't bother.

(Or both, I suppose).

 

[CJane]

I'm getting the distinct impression that these cases are only commonly won if a) there is a lot of money being spent by the putative father or b) the mother doesn't know how to fight it, or doesn't bother.

(Or both, I suppose).

I think that's the case with a whole lot of crazy things the courts do. Which is why I hesitate to say 'no judge would ever _____" ... I know all too well how far discretion can be stretched, and if you can't afford to fight any longer, even the most whacked out order will stand.